Section 357 BNSS: Procedure where accused does not understand proceedings (Formerly Section 318 CrPC)

Section 357 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Procedure where accused does not understand proceedings

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

If the accused, though not a person of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial; and, in the case of a Court other than a High Court, if such proceedings result in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 357

Section 357 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 318 of the CrPC, 1973) prescribes the procedure where an accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings (e.g., deaf, mute, or severe cognitive linguistic impairment).

Inability to Understand Proceedings: Applies where the accused is not insane, but cannot be made to understand the proceedings due to physical infirmities (deaf and dumb) or language barriers.
Continuation of Inquiry or Trial: The Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial; in summons/warrant cases before Magistrates, evidence must be recorded with such interpretive aids as possible.
Mandatory Reference to High Court upon Conviction: If the trial results in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances, and the High Court shall pass such order as it thinks fit.

Key Landmark Precedents:

State v. Radhamal, AIR 1960 Bom 526: The Bombay High Court held that where a deaf and mute accused cannot comprehend the nature of the trial, the Magistrate cannot convict directly; reference to the High Court under Section 318 CrPC is mandatory.
Bhoorey v. State, AIR 1957 All 737: Emphasized that attempting to try a deaf-mute accused without sign language specialists or proper interpretation violates fundamental procedural justice.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When representing a hearing-impaired or speech-impaired accused, move an application under Section 357 demanding a certified sign-language expert; if conviction is recorded by the Magistrate, ensure reference to the High Court is submitted.